My theory on fiction: description grabs attention, but plot sustains it

[taiwwa]

This is a theory that I keep in mind while writing,

But in most books that I read, I notice that I tend to pay most attention to description and inventive uses of language early on. This is basically when I'm wondering if it's worth bothering with continuing the book.

Later on, once I'm familiar with the world, I actually prefer more action, less description, because what sustains long-term interest in a story is the unraveling of plot.

The reason is that descriptive language is certainly stimulating and enlightening, but it's also a bit of work on the part of the reader.

So I guess the way to look at it is painting in the first part, then long-division for the remainder like 300 pages.

How valid?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

People will have different preferences. For myself, character is what sustains interest. The level I care about a character will determine how much I enjoy a story. If I don't care about a character, I'll have no interest in what happens to them (the plot). Plot also is more limited, in my opinion, than character. How many actual plots are there in fiction? I'd say there are far fewer plots than character possibilities.

As far as description in concerned, I'm a minimalist in writing unless I'm going for an effect that calls for a bit more verbosity. If a description is repetitive, meaning it's job is already handled by another description, I'd want to cut it in revision. Further, each description should have a job beyond setting a scene.

For the most part, I try to keep description to things that convey extra info, not merely painting a picture for the reader. Description can do a lot of work if handled well. Good description can tell us a lot about a character or tribe of people, beyond just what they look like. Description can give an inkling of emotion lying beneath a calm surface. Description can perform a great deal, throughout the book if employed effectively.

 

[Penpilot]

I'm along the same lines of thinking as T.A.S.

Interest is built on the foundation of character. Character gives the plot meaning, and plot and character give the details meaning. Without character the plot is just a sequence of unimportant events, and the details are just a list of unimportant facts. What creates interest is what these things mean to your characters.

A man being hanged is an unimportant event. You're main character's father being hanged, now that's more interesting.

A vase full of flowers on a desk is an unimportant detail. A vase full of flowers on your main character's desk from a secret admirer, that's more interesting.

Now, details can be used to establish other things like the feel of the story world, but that's filtered through the eyes of your main character. How the details of the world come out is a reflection your main character and their emotions.

 

[Steerpike]

I'd say it depends on the reader, or even the mood of the reader. I like lean prose or stories that lead off with compelling characters, but that's not all I like. The first time I saw the Gormenghast books, I opened the first one and read the first paragraph, which is all description and not filtered through any character. I immediately bought all three books based on the author's use of descriptive language, and was not let down.

 

[buyjupiter]

This is a theory that I keep in mind while writing,

But in most books that I read, I notice that I tend to pay most attention to description and inventive uses of language early on. This is basically when I'm wondering if it's worth bothering with continuing the book.

Later on, once I'm familiar with the world, I actually prefer more action, less description, because what sustains long-term interest in a story is the unraveling of plot.

The reason is that descriptive language is certainly stimulating and enlightening, but it's also a bit of work on the part of the reader.

So I guess the way to look at it is painting in the first part, then long-division for the remainder like 300 pages.

How valid?

I agree with you right up until the section I bolded. A really good example of a book that lost me about half-way through because of this technique of description/inventive language at the beginning then jam-packed with action later is Snow Crash. The first half of the book, I could not put down, but I lost interest when everything just went crazy in the middle. I wanted more of the inventiveness, not a Hollywood blockbuster movie masquerading as a novel. (For the record, I love Neal Stephenson, I just don't particularly like this novel. He does this same technique later on in his career to better effect, IMO.) I want a writer to, once they've established a great way of describing things/emotions/characters, to keep on doing it like Tad Williams does. Or Stephen King.

Don't get me wrong, I still want a plot, but I really like writing that puts me in the scene alongside the characters. I don't want to feel removed from the action. (That's what 20th Century modern lit is for.)

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I'd say it depends on the reader, or even the mood of the reader. I like lean prose or stories that lead off with compelling characters, but that's not all I like. The first time I saw the Gormenghast books, I opened the first one and read the first paragraph, which is all description and not filtered through any character. I immediately bought all three books based on the author's use of descriptive language, and was not let down.

Would you say this is an example of using description for an effect?

 

[Jabrosky]

I'd say it depends on the reader, or even the mood of the reader. I like lean prose or stories that lead off with compelling characters, but that's not all I like. The first time I saw the Gormenghast books, I opened the first one and read the first paragraph, which is all description and not filtered through any character. I immediately bought all three books based on the author's use of descriptive language, and was not let down.

It might be pertinent that readers apparently have different degrees of imaginative power. My mom tells me that she has a very weak imagination, which is why she's always copying photo or other pictorial references when painting. On the other hand visual imagination isn't hard for me at all. I reckon that readers with weaker imaginations would require more description to exercise their imaginative muscles. Once you've built up those muscles, it would be easier to visualize even if the prose is tighter.

 

[The Dark One]

Everyone's different, but for me...description is nothing without context, and context is the foundation of plot.

Intrigue me with plot before you dazzle me with description.

 

[wordwalker]

I'd say any writing is building a structure that works, and in some ways a description is a microcosm of how a scene or a story does the same thing. Though of course on that scale it's done mostly with pure word choice.

But it's true: because of its scale, good description is a way to score a point right on the first line, then do it a few more times. Almost as fast would be to wow a reader by showing off a concept: "My life didn't really start until it ended" opening lines, or a first scene that subverts a trope. They're ways to complete one small or small-ish structure in a hurry, to make that early impression.

Of course, it's only good as long as it's something you plan to sustain. Good description keeps adding to a story if it continues, and might even shore up a shaky plot. But a vivid start (or even a clever scene concept) backfires if the rest of the tale is something too different from it.

 

[Steerpike]

Would you say this is an example of using description for an effect?

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. The opening certainly does create an effect, and Peake maintains it throughout. The castle Gormenghast almost rises to the level of a character in and of itself. But the prose itself, divorced from the conventional characters or setting, is almost like another character.

The opening in question is as follows:

Gormenghast, that is, the main massing of original stone, taken by itself would have displayed a certain ponderous architectural quality were it possible to have ignored the circumfusion of those mean dwellings that swarmed like an epidemic around its outer walls. They sprawled over the sloping earth, each one half way over its neighbor until, held back by the castle ramparts, the innermost of these hovels laid hold on the great walls, clamping themselves thereto like limpets to a rock. These dwellings, by ancient law, were granted this chill intimacy with the stronghold that loomed over them. Over their irregular roofs would fall throughout the seasons the shadows of time-eaten buttresses, of broken and lofty turrets, and enormous of all, the shadow of the Tower of Flints. This tower, patched unevenly with black ivy, arose like a mutilated finger from among the fists of knuckled masonry and pointed blasphemously at heaven. At night the owls made of it an echoing throat; by day it stood voiceless and cast its long shadow.


Readers will react differently to that. Some readers would hate the book entirely. I think it is the high mark of 20th century fantasy, myself. My reaction to that opening paragraph alone was to buy all three books. Another person's reaction might be to put it back on the shelf.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Yes. That is a good example of description for an effect. It does paint a picture, but it accomplishes far more than merely establishing setting. In my opinion, it promotes a feeling that adds an extra dimension to what is being detailed.

 

[Steerpike]

Yes. That is a good example of description for an effect. It does paint a picture, but it accomplishes far more than merely establishing setting. In my opinion, it promotes a feeling that adds an extra dimension to what is being detailed.

Yes, I see what you mean. That's true in my opinion as well. Peake's writing is dense and wordy, but it isn't superfluous. His words serve a function, and he does a tremendous job of it. Sometimes that's the sort of thing I feel like reading. Other times, I'll reach for a Lee Child novel (Child writers lean, fast prose for the most part).

 

[The Dark One]

Just couldn't get into Gormenghast.

A friend used to rave about it at dinner parties and a couple of times read out the first paragraph - boring some and vaguely interesting others. Such was his enthusiasm that I set off on a mission to find all three books in second hand stores.

Books two and three I found straight away, but book one (Titus Groan) eluded me for the best part of a year until I tracked it down in a really cool old book store off Salamanca Place in Hobart. You might say I went to the ends of the earth to find it!

At last I could start reading the series and with great anticipation I commenced reading Titus Groan - commencing with Steerpike's extract above. I got through the interminable introduction and waited for something to happen. I continued to read - wading through a glutinous wordy soup - and by page 60 or so I was still nowhere.

With great sadness, I put the book down and never picked it up again. Then, when I next saw my friend, I said: I tried to read that bloody Gormenghast you're always going on about. It was just impossible! Nothing happens! How on earth did you get through it?

'I didn't,' he said. 'I couldn't get past the first ten pages...I just liked the opening.'

My response is not printable where children might see it.

 

[Steerpike]

Just couldn't get into Gormenghast.

A friend used to rave about it at dinner parties and a couple of times read out the first paragraph - boring some and vaguely interesting others. Such was his enthusiasm that I set off on a mission to find all three books in second hand stores.

Books two and three I found straight away, but book one (Titus Groan) eluded me for the best part of a year until I tracked it down in a really cool old book store off Salamanca Place in Hobart. You might say I went to the ends of the earth to find it!

At last I could start reading the series and with great anticipation I commenced reading Titus Groan - commencing with Steerpike's extract above. I got through the interminable introduction and waited for something to happen. I continued to read - wading through a glutinous wordy soup - and by page 60 or so I was still nowhere.

With great sadness, I put the book down and never picked it up again. Then, when I next saw my friend, I said: I tried to read that bloody Gormenghast you're always going on about. It was just impossible! Nothing happens! How on earth did you get through it?

'I didn't,' he said. 'I couldn't get past the first ten pages...I just liked the opening.'

My response is not printable where children might see it.

Ha! That hilarious.

I, on the other hand, have gotten through the whole thing not once but twice, and enjoyed the entire thing

 

[andy.peloquin]

I'm actually the opposite. For me, a good world can be built after I get hooked on the story - preferably with something to snag the readers (my) attention.
Take a look at the first pages of WOT#1. Starts out with Lews Therin sitting in a place that he obviously destroyed, weeping over his lost love. Starting out with a bang - hooks me right away!